SITE PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT INSIDE CITY PARK- RC

CONTRACT 021-C06

Geotechnical Design Report

30% Submission

SAUDCONSULT

Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001

July 2022
Revision B
 Document Control

Document: Geotechnical Design Report

Project: SITE PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT INSIDE CITY

PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06

Client: SAUDCONSULT

Report Number: U0775-BL-GEO-R001

Document Checking:

Revision/ Review Authorised

Revision Details of Issue
Date
Prepared By Checked By Approved By
Baker Dwekat Chandra
B July 2022 30% Submission John Barnes
Chandra Mouli Mouli

Disclaimer: Please note that this report is based on specific information, instructions and information from our
Client and should not be relied upon by third parties.

www.ByrneLooby.com

i
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Project Brief & Scope of Works ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 Report Objectives .................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Available Data....................................................................................................................... 6
2 Geological Setting ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Tectonic and Structural Setting ............................................................................................ 7
2.3 Holocene-Pleistocene Sedimentation................................................................................... 7
3 Summary of Available Data ....................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Geotechnical Investigation ................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Proposed Development Area ............................................................................................... 9
3.3 Site Topography .................................................................................................................. 10
3.4 Groundwater table .............................................................................................................. 10
3.5 Seismic Site Classification .................................................................................................. 10
4 Interpretation of Ground Conditions ......................................................................................... 11
4.1 Generalised Soil Stratigraphy ........................................................................................... 11
4.2 Soil Characteristics.............................................................................................................. 17
4.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests ......................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Bulk Density .................................................................................................................. 18
4.2.3 Fines Content ............................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Angle of Friction .......................................................................................................... 18
4.2.5 Stiffness ......................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.6 Design Soil Parameters ............................................................................................... 19
5 Liquefaction Assessment ........................................................................................................... 22
6 Recommendations for Fill Material ......................................................................................... 23
6.1 Backfill Materials, Uses & Tests ......................................................................................... 23
6.2 Geotechnical Parameters for Filling Soil .......................................................................... 25
7 Filling Methodology ................................................................................................................... 26
7.1 Site Clearance ..................................................................................................................... 26
7.2 Placement and Compaction ............................................................................................... 26
8 Recommendations for Excavation and Slope Stability........................................................ 27
9 Recommendation for Corrosion Protection of Concrete ......................................................... 28

ii
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 9.1 Ground Chemistry ............................................................................................................... 28
9.2 Assessment to Exposure Categories .................................................................................. 28
Appendix A – Layout of Boreholes ................................................................................................. A
Appendix B – Liquefaction Assessment ..........................................................................................B
Appendix C – Structural Drawings ................................................................................................. C

iii
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 1 Introduction
1.1 Project Brief & Scope of Works

As part of the Royal Commission (RC) development of the area, it is intended to grade the
exsiting Treated Seweage Effluent (TSE) which is located within the Northen Corridor Buffer
Zone (NCBZ) to provide an Engineerined Natural Treatment System (ENTS), the total
development area is approximated to 240 ha.

The Master Plan allocates the usage of the area as follows :

1- Eco Park & Dry Area

Genral infrastructure and development are proposed in this area , this including : roads, utility
corridors,etc. This area is adjacent to the wet area where ENTS is to be developed.

2- ENTS Area

This is the main area of the whole development since engineerd grading need to be perfromed
to stasfy the requirments of sludge efflunet treatment. The ENTS development plan along with
cross sections are shown in Drawings 021-360-20JI-CE-101, 021-360-20JI-CE-115, 021-360-
20JI-CE-160 and 021-360-20JI-CE-166.

Below figure shows ENTS area long with ECO Park

Figure 1.1 – Location of Development

4
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 1.2 Report Objectives

The objective of this report is to prepare Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) that provides
geotechnical consultancy services for the proposed structures. The following aspects are
covered in this report.

• Proposed Ground Profile

Description and interpretation of the soil layers in the boreholes to create unified soil
profile(s). This is presented in Section 4.2.1of this report.

• Design Geotechnical Parameters

Determining the bulk density, friction angle and stiffness based on tests carried out on
soil samples and engineering correlations. The design parameters will be based on
engineering judgment and field/laboratory tests. This is presented in Section 4.2.6 of
this report.

• Recommendations for backfilling and Excavation

Recommending materials for backfilling purposes, along with their properties. Also,
providing general guideline for grading plan and excavation.

• Recommendation for Buried Concrete

Recommending the concrete class that should be used based on the Ground Chemistry
of the site. This is presented in Section 9 of the report.

5
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 1.3 Available Data

Below listed input data received from Saud Consult (SC) are reviewed for the purposes of this
report:

Table 1 – Available Documents

Ref # Document Document Reference/Rev Date

Engineered Natural Treatment System
1 021-360-20JI-CE-101, Rev B Jan 2020
Overall Layout
2 Hydraulic Section G at SFCW 3 021-360-20JI-CE-115, Rev B Jan 2020
Surface Flow Constructed Wetlands Jan 2020
3 021-360-20JI-CE-160, Rev B
Typical Sections (Sheet 1 of 2)
4 Overflow Channels Details 021-360-20JI-CE-166, Rev B Jan 2020
Geotechnical Investigation Report
5 Contract 001-T03, Task Release 94 Rev 11-K-3064/94 Rev01 16 Mar 2022
0, Contract 021-C06

Plan layout of the investigation points with location of structures is provided in Appendix A.

6
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 2 Geological Setting

2.1 Introduction

The Arabian Gulf is a shallow elongated basin of Late Pliocene to Early Pleistocene age. The
basin is asymmetric, with a gentle slope on the Arabian side, a much steeper slope on the
Iranian side, and water depths which rarely exceed 100 metres. The basin is bound on the
northwest and along the Iranian side by the Zagros mountain belt, which is the central part of
the Alpine-Himalayan chain. The Gulf consists of a foreland basin with glacio-eustatically
controlled mixed carbonate-clastic fill (Walkden and Williams, 1998).

2.2 Tectonic and Structural Setting

Tectonism in the region can be divided in two zones: (1) the northern part of the Gulf of
Oman, where the Arabian plate is subducting the Eurasian plate; (2) the Zagros mountain belt
area, where the plates are colliding (Ross et al., 1986). Vertical movements are associated
not only with plate tectonics but also with plastic flow of the Hormuz Salt (Uchupi et al.,
1996).

2.3 Holocene-Pleistocene Sedimentation

According to Walkden and Williams (1998), the Gulf experienced the interaction of three
equally important depositional systems throughout Pleistocene-Holocene time. These are the
Arabian Gulf marine carbonate system, the Mesopotamian fluvio-deltaic system, and the
Arabian continental aeolian system. Based on location, Al Arabiyah, Hasbah, Marjan, Kurayn
and Safaniya Fields lie within the marine carbonate system characterized by diverse
sediments, varying from high-energy oolite and bioclastic sands to low-energy marls (Walkden
and Williams, 1998). More precisely, these five fields are located in the Western basin
(Uchupi et al., 1999), where the early Holocene sequence consists of a white to greenish
aragonite mud. The late Holocene sequence consists of a marl unit deposited during the last
9000 years. Known thicknesses of late Pleistocene-Holocene sediments are highly variable
(Uchupi et al., 1996). In the shallow water areas, sediment thickness varies up to a maximum
of about 10 metres although large areas have less than 2 m. Greater thicknesses seem to
occur in the deeper water towards the Gulf axis (Kassler, 1973). These sediments may contain
submarine lithified. Most sediment in the Gulf accumulates in topographic depressions, thus
tending to smooth out the relief (Kassler, 1973). Mud is the predominant sediment in the
deeper parts of the Gulf, while the biogenic and windblown sediment component increases
towards the Arabian coast.

7
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Figure 2 – Generalised Geology of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

8
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 3 Summary of Available Data

3.1 Geotechnical Investigation

The available existing geotechnical investigation was carried out by Engineering Research
International (ERI) in 2022 under Contract 021-C06 [Ref# 5]. Under this campaign, a total of
60 boreholes were drilled; out of which 10 were drilled in the Eco Park, 45 in wetland/ENTS
area and 5 were drilled in the dry area. Details of boreholes in relation to the proposed
development area is presented in Table 2. In addition to the field sampling and testing,
laboratory testing includes:

• Natural Moisture Content;

• Sieve Analysis;
• Unit Weight;
• Atterberg Limits;
• Direct Shear Load tests;
• Chemical tests, such as pH, sulphates, chlorides.

The boreholes’ locations are presented in Appendix A.

3.2 Proposed Development Area

From the available data, different development areas that are proposed as part of the current
contract are listed in the table below along with the borehole numbers near to the
development location.

Table 2 – List of proposed Development Areas

Number of Corresponding
ID Proposed Development BH Depth (m)
Boreholes Boreholes
BHEP-1 to
01 Eco Park 10 10.0 m
BHEP-10
02 ENTS Area 45 BH-1 to BH-45 10.0 m
BH-46 to BH-
03 Dry Area 5 10.0 m
50

9
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 3.3 Site Topography

From the investigated borehole points, site elevation variations across different structures are as
tabulated below.

Table 3 – Site Elevations

ID Proposed Development Site Elevation (m El)
01 Eco Park +4.29 to +4.84
02 ENTS Area +2.87 to +3.70
03 Dry Area +4.15 to +3.15

3.4 Groundwater table

Ground water strikes are encountered in all the boreholes within the ranges provided in Table
4. It should be noted that due to tidal and seasonal change the measured levels are subject to
variations.

Table 4 – Groundwater Strikes

Measured Water Measured Water Design Water table
ID Proposed Development table Depths table Elevations Elevation
(m) (m El) (m El)
01 Eco Park 0.60 to 1.20 +3.38 to +3.91 +4.00
02 ENTS Area 0.20 to 0.80 - +2.87 to +3.70
03 Dry Area 0.68 to 1.03 +2.25 to +3.23 +3.40

3.5 Seismic Site Classification

Soil encountered at the current site is cohesionless strata with stiffnesses varying from loose to
very dense. Soft sabkha layers are encountered in few boreholes. Subsequent to the
encountered conditions and in accordance with Table 20-1 of SBC-301, this site can be
classified under seismic site class D.

10
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 4 Interpretation of Ground Conditions
4.1 Generalised Soil Stratigraphy

The investigation carried out from boreholes revealed a varying stratigraphy across the site.
Substrata details encountered at location of the structures are presented below separately for
each structures.

In all of the boreholes, standard penetration tests (SPT) were conducted 10.0 m below ground.
Based on the SPT blow counts, a design soil profile based on engineering judgement has been
derived for the proposed development areas with profile IDs as tabulated below.

Table 5 – Soil Profiles ID

Proposed Development
ID Soil Profile ID Boreholes
Area
BHEP-01 to BHEP-07
Soil Profile 1
BH-46 to BH-48
01 Eco Park & Dry land
BHEP-08 to BHEP-10
Soil Profile 2
BH-49 to BH-50
BH-01, BH-02,BH-04,
Soil Profile 3
BH-05 & BH-15

02 ENTS/WetLand Soil Profile 4 BH-03 to BH-36, BH-39

Soil Profile 5 BH-37 to BH-45

Soil Profile 1

Relatively Loose Sand layer of 1.5-2.0 m thick is found at the top followed by very soft silt
layers. Remaining depth is comprised of Medium Dense to Dense Sand with increasing
stiffness with the depth. Thickness of different layers and the average field SPT values along
with their variation with depth are provided below

11
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Figure 3 – Field SPT vs Elevation for Profile 1

Table 6 – Subsoil Profile 1

From To Avg Field
Layer
(m EL) (m EL) SPT-N
+5.0 +4.0 5
Very loose to Loose, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
+4.0 +3.0 3
Soft Silt +3.0 0.0 1
Very loose to loose Sand with silt 0.0 -2.0 5
-2.0 -4.0 9
Loose to medium dense Sand
-4.0 -7.0 22
Soil Profile 2

The boreholes along this profile comprised Sand with increasing stiffness with the depth.
Thickness of different layers and the average field SPT values along with their variation with
depth are provided below.

12
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Figure 4 – Field SPT vs Elevation for Soil Profile 2

Table 7 – Subsoil Profile 2

From To Avg Field
Layer
(m EL) (m EL) SPT-N
Loose Sand with silt +4.0 +2.0 8

Very loose Sand with Silt +2.0 0.0 5

0.0 -2.0 12
Loose to medium Dense Sand
-2.0 -3.0 8
-3.0 -5.0 20
Medium dense to Dense Sand
-5.0 -7.0 28

Soil Profile 3

The boreholes along this profile comprised from 1.0 m Superficial Silt layer followed by Sand
with increasing stiffness with the depth. Thickness of different layers and the average field SPT
values along with their variation with depth are provided below.

13
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Subsoil Profiling is presented in below table.

Table 8 – Subsoil Profile 3

From To Avg Field
Layer
(m EL) (m EL) SPT-N
Soft Silt +3.0 +2.0 1

Loose to medium Dense Sand +2.0 0.0 13

Medium dense Sand 0.0 -4.0 25
Dense to very dense Sand -4.0 -7.0 44

Figure 5 – Field SPT vs Elevation for Profile 3

14
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Soil Profile 4

The boreholes along this profile comprised from 2.0 m Superficial Silt layer followed by Sand
with increasing stiffness with the depth. Thickness of different layers and the average field SPT
values along with their variation with depth are provided below.

Figure 6 – Field SPT vs Elevation for Profile 4

15
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Table 9 – Subsoil Profile 4

From To Avg Field

Layer
(m EL) (m EL) SPT-N
Very soft to soft sandy Silt +3.0 +1.0 1.5

Very loose to Loose Sand with silt +1.0 0.0 5

0.0 -2.0 14
Loose to medium Dense Sand
-2.0 -3.0 25
-3.0 -5.0 28
Medium dense to Dense Sand
-5.0 -7.0 32

Soil Profile 5

The boreholes along this profile comprised from 3.0 m Superficial Silt layer followed by Sand
with increasing stiffness with the depth. Thickness of different layers and the average field SPT
values along with their variation with depth are provided below.

Figure 7 – Field SPT vs Elevation for Profile 5

16
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Table 10 – Subsoil Profile 5

From To Avg Field

Layer
(m EL) (m EL) SPT-N
Very soft to soft sandy Silt +3.0 +1.0 5
Very loose to Loose Sand with silt +1.0 0.0 2
0.0 -3.0 15
Loose to medium Dense Sand -3.0 -5.0 12
-5.0 -6.0 20
Medium dense to Dense Sand -6.0 -8.0 28

4.2 Soil Characteristics

4.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests

Standard penetration tests (SPT) were conducted for sand layers in all of the boreholes.
Accordingly, a design soil profile for SPT-N based on engineering judgement has been derived
for the ground profile. Corrected N values are used for estimation of the design parameters.
Corrected SPT N values (N1)60 are estiamated based on the equation below.

(N1)60 = N x CN x CE x CB x CR x CS

CN = Correction for overburden pressure

CE = Correction for hammer energy
CB = Correction for borehole diameter
CR = Correction for rod length
CS = Correction for samplers with or without liners

17
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Figure 8 – SPT Correction Factors

The correction factors used in this report are provided below.

CB = 1.0, CR, CN = Varies, CS = 1.10.

Though for a hammer energy factor for 85% the energy correction factor is 1.42, this value is
limited to 1.2 in the calculations.

The summarised field SPT-N data, corrected design N values along with discussion on the
derivation of design soil poarameters for different profiles are presented below

4.2.2 Bulk Density

For design purposes, bulk densities of 16kN/m3 for the loose sand and very soft silt, of 17kN/m3
for medium dense, 18kN/m3 for dense sand and 19kN/m3 for very dense sand have been
considered.

4.2.3 Fines Content

Fines content in the sand samples varied from as low as 3.9% for Sand or slightly Silty Sands
till reaching a value of 98 % for Silts, Fine content readings are provided in GIR [ See
reference 5].

4.2.4 Angle of Friction

The effective friction angle of the sands can be measured by conducting direct shear box tests
in the laboratory on samples obtained from field exploration. In addition to that, In-situ SPT
field testing can be used to estimate the friction angle of cohesionless soil. The design SPT-N

18
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 values are correlated to the friction angle according to the empirical relationships proposed by
Peck, Hanson and Thornburn in a paper published in 1974, that is reproduced below.

Figure 9– Peck et al. – SPT – N vs Friction Angle

4.2.5 Stiffness

The stiffness for cohesionless soils has been estimated from E’ / N relationships postulated by
Burland and Burbidge and in CIRIA 143. The Burland and Burbidge’s data relates to the
observations of immediate settlements from a database of 100 case records from international
sources. It should be noted that the Young’s Modulus, E’, values estimated relate to behaviour
in the vertical axis only.

Table 11 – Young’s Modulus – Burland and Burbidge (as presented in CIRIA R143)
Penetration Resistance E’ / N (MPa)
(N blows / 300 mm) Mean Lower Limit Upper Limit
4 1.6 – 2.4 0.4 – 0.6 3.5 – 5.3
10 2.2 – 3.4 0.7 – 1.1 4.6 – 7.0
30 3.7 – 5.6 1.5 – 2.2 6.6 – 10.0

The design values of Young’s Modulus for soil have been considered based on an average value
as 1.5 times the corrected N60 values for SPT for Sands and 1.0 times the corrected N60 for
Silts/Clays . For stiffness estimation, the SPT values are not corrected for the overburden stress.

4.2.6 Design Soil Parameters

Tables below presents a summary of the geotechnical parameters that have been adopted for
the design.

19
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Table 12 – Design Parameters for Profile 1
To Avg
From Unit Friction
(m Field Modulus,
Layer (m N60 (N1)60 Weight Angle
EL) SPT- E [MPa]
EL) (kN/m3) (°)
N
Very loose to Loose, +5.0 +4.0 5 5.0 8.4 16 29 7.4
Poorly Graded Sand with
Silt +4.0 +3.0 3 3.0 5.0 17 28 4.5
Soft Silt* +3.0 0.0 1 1.1 1.9 17 27 4.0
Very loose to loose Sand
0.0 -2.0 5 17
with silt 6.3 8.8 29 9.4
Loose to medium dense -2.0 -4.0 9 11.3 14.1 17 30 16.9
Sand -4.0 -7.0 22 29.0 31.8 18 34 43.6

Table 13 – Design Parameters Profile 2

To Avg
From Unit Friction
(m Field Modulus,
Layer (m N60 (N1)60 Weight Angle
EL) SPT- E [MPa]
EL) (kN/m3) (°)
N
Loose Sand with silt +4.0 +2.0 8 7.9 13.5 17 29 11.9
Very loose Sand with Silt +2.0 0.0 5 5.6 8.9 16 29 8.4
Loose to medium Dense 0.0 -2.0 12 15.0 20.8 17 31 22.6
Sand -2.0 -3.0 8 10.0 12.7 17 30 15.0
Medium dense to Dense -3.0 -5.0 20 25.1 29.1 18 34 37.6
Sand -5.0 -7.0 28 37.0 38.9 18 36 55.4

Table 14 – Design Parameters for Profile 3

To Avg
From Unit Friction
(m Field Modulus,
Layer (m N60 (N1)60 Weight Angle
EL) SPT- E [MPa]
EL) (kN/m3) (°)
N
Soft Silt* +3.0 +2.0 1 1.0 1.7 16 27 4.0
Loose to medium Dense
+2.0 0.0 13 17
Sand 13.7 23.3 31 20.6
Medium dense Sand 0.0 -4.0 25 31.4 46.5 17 36 47.0
Dense to very dense Sand -4.0 -7.0 44 58.1 67.2 18 38 87.1

20
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Table 15 – Design Parameters for Profile 4
To Avg
From Unit Friction
(m Field Modulus,
Layer (m N60 (N1)60 Weight Angle
EL) SPT- E [MPa]
EL) (kN/m3) (°)
N
Very soft to soft sandy
+3.0 +1.0 1.5 16
Silt* 1.5 2.5 28 4.0
Very loose to Loose Sand
+1.0 0.0 5 16
with silt 5.3 9.0 29 7.9
Loose to medium Dense 0.0 -2.0 14 15.7 23.5 17 32 23.6
Sand -2.0 -3.0 25 31.4 42.1 18 36 47.0
Medium dense to Dense -3.0 -5.0 28 35.1 42.8 18 37 52.7
Sand -5.0 -7.0 32 42.2 46.0 19 38 63.4

Table 16 – Design Parameters for Profile 5

To Avg
From Unit Friction
(m Field Modulus,
Layer (m N60 (N1)60 Weight Angle
EL) SPT- E [MPa]
EL) (kN/m3) (°)
N
Very soft to soft sandy
+3.0 +1.0 5 16
Silt* 5.0 8.4 29 6.0
Very loose to Loose Sand
+1.0 0.0 2 16
with silt 2.1 3.6 28 3.2
0.0 -3.0 15 18.8 27.1 17 33 28.2
Loose to medium Dense
-3.0 -5.0 12 15.0 18.6 18 31 22.6
Sand
-5.0 -6.0 20 25.1 28.7 18 34 37.6
Medium dense to Dense
-6.0 -8.0 28 19
Sand 37.0 39.4 36 55.4

*Conservatively, a cautious drained cohesion value of c’= 2 kPa is considered for Silt layers for all the
above-mentioned profiles.

21
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 5 Liquefaction Assessment

To assess the liquefaction potential of subsoil, Youd and Idriss (2001) method, based on SPT
criteria is used in the current assessment. Calculation of two variables is required for
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soil, namely the seismic demand on soil layer
expressed in terms of CSR (Cyclic Stress Ratio) and the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction
expressed in terms of CRR (Cyclic Resistance Ratio).

For liquefaction potential assessment, ByrneLooby considered the maximum possible earthquake
magnitude of 6.0 and peak ground acceleration of 6% g with a site factor of 1.6 is used.

This method is briefly described below:

FS = CRR7.5/CSR x MSF

CSR = (τav/σ’vo) = 0.65(amax/g)*(σvo/σ’vo)*rd

1 (𝑁𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 50 1
CRR7.5 = + + [10(𝑁𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 +45]2
−
34−(𝑁𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 135 200

Where: FS = Factor of Safety against Liquefaction

CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio = Seismic Demand on Soil Layer

CRR = Cyclic Resistance Ratio = Capacity of Soil to Resist Liquefaction

102.24
MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factors= 2.56
𝑀𝑀𝑤𝑤

amax = peak ground acceleration (m/s2)

σvo, σ’vo = Total and Effective Vertical Stresses

1 − 0.4113z0.5 + 0.04052z + 0.001753z1.5

rd = Stress reduction coefficient = 1− 0.4177z0.5 + 0.05729z− 0.006205z1.5 +0.001210z2

(N1)60cs = α + β (N1)60 where α and β are coefficients determined from the

following relationships:
190
(1.76− )
α = 𝑒𝑒 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹2

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 1.5
β = �0.99 + � 1000 �� (For 5% ≤ FC ≤ 35%)

The liquefaction assessment was performed for the most critical soil profile (Profile 1). The
results are presented in Appendix D. The minimum Factor of safety (FoS) against liquefaction
was found to be 1.5. As the other soil profiles are stiffer than this soil profile liquefaction is not
anticipated to occur.

22
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 6 Recommendations for Fill Material

This section describes the specification and design criteria for the fill material. The backfill
materials should be in accordance with the specifications as provided in RC specification,
Section 31 23 00-1.

6.1 Backfill Materials, Uses & Tests

Suitable fill material from natural on-land sources shall comprise cohesionless material or
cohesive material.

Where cohesive materials are used, particle size containing more than 20% by dry mass
passing the 75micron sieve determined in accordance with ASTMD422 or having a Liquid Limit
exceeding 30 or a Plasticity Index exceeding 8, determined in accordance with ASTM D4318,
shall be restricted from use.

All materials shall be free of debris, waste, organic material, and other deleterious matter.
Except where specified otherwise, all material shall be free of rock or gravel larger than 100mm.

The backfill material shall be classified as Type I or Sand Backfill, according to the following:

• Type I:
o Graded sands and gravel, gravel-sand or silty-sand mixtures, crushed graded
rock; little or no fines, no well-defined moisture versus maximum density
relationship (GW, SW, GP, SP) (ASTM D2487 for the Unified Soil Classification
System).
o Plasticity Index: NP to 5.
o Gradation: Less than 12% passing No. 200 sieve.

• Type II:
o Clayey gravels and sands, poorly graded mixture of sand, gravel and clay, clays
(inorganic) of low to medium plasticity, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays (CM,
SM, GC, SC, CL).
o Liquid Limit: 20 to 50.
o Plasticity Index: 5 to 22 maximum

• Type III:
o Any material that does not fit under Type I, Type 1A or Type II
o Plasticity Index: 5 to 22 maximum

23
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 • Sand Backfill
o Material suitable for use as sand backfill shall consist of natural sand,
manufactured sand, or a combination thereof, and shall conform to the
requirements for fine aggregate specified in ASTM C33, Standard Specification
for Concrete Aggregate
o Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
o Gradation as provided below

Table 17 - Gradation Limits for Sand Backfill

Sieve Size (ASTM E11) Percentage Passing (by weight)

9.5 mm 100
4.75 mm 95-100
2.36 mm 80-100
1.18 mm 50-85
0.60 mm 25-60
0.30 mm 10-30
0.15 mm 2-10
• Granular Drainage Fill Under Slabs-On-Grade

o Capillary water barrier under slab-on-grade shall consist of clean non-porous

rock, crushed rock or uncrushed gravel.
o The maximum particle size shall be 37.5 mm, and no more than 2% (by weight)
shall pass the 4.75 mm size sieve.

• Retaining Wall Backfill

o Free-draining Type I material with less than 5% passing No. 200 sieve.

• Select Backfill and Structural Backfill

o Material shall be Type I. Do not use select backfill material with particles larger
than 20 mm within 600 mm of structures and within 200 mm of buried pipes.

• Starter Layer for soft ground or standing water

o Material shall be Type IA. Do not use select backfill material with particles larger
than 20 mm within 600 mm of structures and within 200 mm of buried pipes.

• Landscape fill
o Material shall be Type III. Do not use select backfill material with particles larger
than 20 mm within 600 mm of structures and within 200 mm of buried pipes.

• General Fill Materials for Subgrade Grading Work

24
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 o Material shall be of Type II.

• General Backfill Material above the Pipe Zone in Pipe Trenches

o Material shall be of Type I or Type II.

The following laboratory and field test shall be carried out on the fill material to demonstrate
compliance with the RC specification 31 23 00:

1. Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content of soils shall be in accordance to ASTM
D1557.

2. Classification of soils for Engineering Purposes shall be in accordance to ASTM D2487.

3. Particle-Size Analysis of Soils shall be in accordance to ASTM D422.

4. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils shall be in accordance to ASTM
D4318.

6.2 Geotechnical Parameters for Filling Soil

The following geotechnical properties as presented in the table below have been assumed for
Type I and Type II engineered fill material with standard compaction effort.

Table 18– Geotechnical parameters for filling soil

Bulk Density Angle of Friction Young’s Modulus, E

Type of fill
kN/m3 ∅ MPa
Type I 18 32 35
Type II 18 30 35

25
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 7 Filling Methodology
7.1 Site Clearance

1. Prior to the commencement of work, the Contractor shall obtain the relevant NOC’s, work
permit, licenses from authorising agencies, according to RC Spec 02230.

2. The Contractor shall undertake clearing of site in order to remove any construction
materials, like steel, cement, sand stacked in the area. Generally, the topsoil is scrapped
off to remove any organic content or grass roots at the existing ground level.

7.2 Placement and Compaction

The following recommendation shall be followed for the placement and compaction:

1. The exposed surface should be uniformly compacted to create a solid platform for the
construction of structural/general fill (based on the filling for structural or non-structural
use). Selected fill as described in Section 6.1 shall be placed in continuous, uniform and
approximately horizontal layers over the length and shall be brought up uniformly on all
sides, to reach the finished ground level. Each of the layer should be compacted to not
more than 150mm of uncompact thickness.

2. The structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of its maximum modified Proctor
density as per ASTM D 1557, Method C. For general fill the compaction can be reduced
to 90% of the maximum modified Proctor density. Compaction can be done up to 2% of
the optimum moisture content. Each of the layer should be tested and approved by the
authoring agencies. On approval of the previously compacted layer, the work should
be progressed. In case the results do not adequate compaction, additional passes of
roller should be applied. This should be retested to confirm compliance. This operation
should be continued till the finished grade level has been achieved.

26
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 8 Recommendations for Excavation and Slope Stability

In a conventional slope stability analysis, a predetermined slip surface is assumed and the
stability of the failing soil mass is evaluated by comparing the resisting and disturbing forces or
moments. Usually, many slip circles are investigated and the most critical one identified.

However, for shallow slopes with cohesionless soil throughout the soil profile, the slope is
considered to be stable if:

• Friction angle (φ) is greater than slope angle (β)

Generally, factor of safety of 1.3 can be considered for this case. Hence the slope angle (β)
should be chosen such that (tan φ/tan β) is greater than 1.3. Considering slopes of height up
to 4m and that the angle of friction of the imported backfill soil is greater than 34o, then a 1V:2H
slope could be adopted.

For temporary slopes in Type I backfill the slope angle can be kept as 1V:1.75H provided the
slope is dry and no seepages occur within the slope face or toe. In all circumstances the top of
the slope should not be loaded with stockpiles of materials, construction equipment or other such
imposed loading without more detailed slope stability analysis. All temporary slopes should be
inspected on site, and less steep slopes adopted for areas of looser material or seepages. The
Contractor should ensure adequate drainage and face protection measures are in place to
prevent surface erosion of the slopes.

For temporary slopes, using Type II backfill, the slope angle should be maintained as 1V:3H,
provided the slope is kept dry and no seepage occurs along slope face.

ENTS Area

As per the proposed profiles 3,4 and 5 , It is noted that the first superficial 2-3 m are Sludge
and Silt like materials , we recommend removing the first 2-3 m and replace with Backfill material
Type I.

As for the adopted slopes as shown the ENTS sections in the structural drawings, we have noted
that slopes of 1:2 and 1:3 are followed which are within the general limit of backfill material
type I and therefore deemed acceptable.

Eco Park

We noted presence of soft layers of silts extending till 4.0 m – 5.0 m especially in profile 1 , it
is recommended either to dig and replace these layers with proper backfill material (backfill
Type I, for example) or carry out a deep ground improvement campaign by means of rigid
inclusions (such as : stone columns) ; such decision however is to be finalized based on the
anticipated use of the land.

27
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 9 Recommendation for Corrosion Protection of Concrete

9.1 Ground Chemistry

Chemical tests were conducted on soil samples recovered from the exploratory borehole and
tests results are summarized in Section Error! Reference source not found..

9.2 Assessment to Exposure Categories

An assessment of the ground aggressiveness to concrete has been undertaken in accordance
with Section 19.3 of Saudi Building Code (SBC 304), 2018.

Table 19.3.1.1 classifies the ground on the basis of sulphate and chloride content in soil and
water.

The maximum values of the sulphate (SO4) test results have been determined as 0.51%. This
would classify the site as exposure class S2.

The maximum values of the chloride (Cl- ions) test results have been determined as 1.33%. This
would classify the site as exposure class C3.

The requirements for concrete based on the above exposure classes are provided in Table
19.3.2.1, which is reproduced in Table 19 Additionally, the minimum cover requirements
recommended by the SBC 304 are presented in Table 20 below.

Table 19 – Table 19.3.2.1 of SBC 304

28
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Table 20 – Table 20.6.1.3.1 of SBC 304

29
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Appendix A – Layout of Boreholes

A
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 FIGURE 2 : BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

PROJECT : ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
ROYAL COMMISSION CN # 021-C06
CLIENT : ROYAL COMMISSION IN JUBAIL
PROJ# : 11-K-3064/T94 REV. 0 (001-T03)
 Appendix B – Liquefaction Assessment

B
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001
 Job title: DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Job no: U775
Date: 01/07/22
Made by: BD
Check by:CM
Sheet no:-

Calculation Sheet
Project Title : DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Calculation Title : Estimation of liquefaction potential for profile 3
Ref Calculations Output
INPUT

EARTHQUAKE

Earthquake magnitude, M = 6
Horizontal acceleration, (amax/g) or Z = 0.096 (=aS for EC8 reference)

SOILS

Soils information gb Fines Field SPT Rod energy connection Rod length correction
3
Layer no. Description (kN/m ) % Hammer type CE Rod length (m) CR
From To Donut 0.5 - 1.0 <3 0.75
1 5 4 16 70 5 Safety 0.7 - 1.2 3 to 4 0.80
2 4 3 17 70 3 Automatic trip donut 0.8 - 1.3 4 to 6 0.85
3 3 0 17 60 1 6 to 10 0.95
4 0 -2 17 25 5 Borehole diameter correction 10 to 30 1.00
5 -2 -4 17 20 9 Diameter (mm) CB
6 -4 -7 18 20 22 65-115 1.00
7 150 1.05
8 200 1.15

SPT Corrections
(N1)60 = NM CN CE CB CR CS
NM = Measured N value
0.5
CN = Correction for overburden pressure (P a / s ' vo ) <= 1.7
CE = Correction for rod energy E r /60 or see table
CB = Correction for borehole diameter See table
CR = Correction for rod length See table
CS = Correction for samplers with or without liners Standard sampler = 1.0, Sampler without liner = 1.1 to 1.3

Datum and groundwater Borehole data

Reference datum 5 m RCD Rod energy ratio 72 %
GWL 4 m RCD Borehole diameter 100 mm Therefore CB = 1.00
Water Density 9.8 kn/m3 Sampler type NS (S = standard, NS = no liners)

Depth Datum Soil type sv u sv' Fines D50 Nm CN = CE = CB = CR = CS = (N1)60

2 2 2
(m) (mMSL) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) % mm

0.0 5.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 70 0.33 5 #DIV/0! 1.20 1.00 0.75 1.1
0.5 4.5 2 8.5 0.0 8.5 70 0.33 3 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.75 1.1 5
1.0 4.0 2 17.0 0.0 17.0 70 0.33 3 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.75 1.1 5
1.5 3.5 2 25.5 4.9 20.6 70 0.33 3 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.75 1.1 5
2.0 3.0 2 34.0 9.8 24.2 70 0.33 3 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.75 1.1 5
2.5 2.5 2 42.5 14.7 27.8 70 0.33 3 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.75 1.1 5
3.0 2.0 3 51.0 19.6 31.4 60 0.33 1 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.80 1.1 2
3.5 1.5 3 59.5 24.5 35.0 60 0.33 1 1.70 1.20 1.00 0.80 1.1 2
4.0 1.0 4 68.0 29.4 38.6 25 0.33 5 1.62 1.20 1.00 0.85 1.1 9
4.5 0.5 4 76.5 34.3 42.2 25 0.33 5 1.55 1.20 1.00 0.85 1.1 9
5.0 0.0 4 85.0 39.2 45.8 25 0.33 5 1.49 1.20 1.00 0.85 1.1 8
5.5 -0.5 4 93.5 44.1 49.4 25 0.33 5 1.43 1.20 1.00 0.85 1.1 8
6.0 -1.0 5 102.0 49.0 53.0 20 0.33 9 1.38 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 16
6.5 -1.5 5 110.5 53.9 56.6 20 0.33 9 1.34 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 15
7.0 -2.0 5 119.0 58.8 60.2 20 0.33 9 1.30 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 15
7.5 -2.5 5 127.5 63.7 63.8 20 0.33 9 1.26 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 14
8.0 -3.0 5 136.0 68.6 67.4 20 0.33 9 1.23 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 14
8.5 -3.5 5 144.5 73.5 71.0 20 0.33 9 1.19 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 14
9.0 -4.0 5 153.0 78.4 74.6 20 0.33 9 1.17 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 13
9.5 -4.5 5 161.5 83.3 78.2 20 0.33 9 1.14 1.20 1.00 0.95 1.1 13
10.0 -5.0 5 170.0 88.2 81.8 20 0.33 9 1.11 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.1 13
10.5 -5.5 5 178.5 93.1 85.4 20 0.33 9 1.09 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.1 13
11.0 -6.0 5 187.0 98.0 89.0 20 0.33 9 1.07 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.1 13
11.5 -6.5 5 195.5 102.9 92.6 20 0.33 9 1.05 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.1 13
12.0 -7.0 5 204.0 107.8 96.2 20 0.33 9 1.03 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.1 12
CONSULTING SERVICES IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Job title:
Unit 1 Lakeview Point, Job no:
Claregalway Corporate Park, Co Galway Date:
tel: +353 (0) 91 739366 Made by:
fax: +353 (0) 91 739944 Check by:
e-mail : [email protected] www.blpge.com Sheet no:

Calculation Sheet
Project Title : DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Calculation Title : Estimation of liquefaction potential for profile 3
Ref Calculations Output
IDRISS AND BOULANGER (2010)

Definitions
M= Earthquake magnitude
amax/g = Max horizontal acceleration at ground surface (also referred to as Z)
MSF = Magnitude scaling factor
rd = Stress reduction coefficient
CSR = Cyclic stress ratio
CRR = Cyclic resistance ratio
(N1)60 cs = Equivalent clean sand N value for calculating the CRR

Equations

MSF = 1.48

Stress Correction : 20 kPa - Stress change to reflect filling/excavation from BH level

Finished Ground : 5 m RCD
Depth sv sv' FC CN (N1)60 a(z) b(z) rd CSR D(N1)60 (N1)60 CS CRR
2 2
(m) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) % Reduction Factor, DE

0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0

0.5 8.5 8.5 70.0 1.700 5 -0.005 0.001 0.999 0.062 5.57 11 0.182 1.00
1.0 17.0 17.0 70.0 1.700 5 -0.027 0.003 0.991 0.062 5.57 11 0.182 1.00
1.5 25.5 20.6 70.0 1.700 5 -0.051 0.006 0.983 0.076 5.57 11 0.182 1.00
2.0 34.0 24.2 70.0 1.700 5 -0.077 0.009 0.975 0.085 5.57 11 0.182 1.00
2.5 42.5 27.8 70.0 1.700 5 -0.105 0.012 0.966 0.092 5.57 11 0.182 1.00
3.0 51.0 31.4 60.0 1.700 2 -0.134 0.015 0.956 0.097 5.60 7 0.150 1.00
3.5 59.5 35.0 60.0 1.700 2 -0.165 0.018 0.946 0.100 5.60 7 0.150 1.00
4.0 68.0 38.6 25.0 1.611 9 -0.197 0.022 0.936 0.103 5.07 14 0.223 1.00
4.5 76.5 42.2 25.0 1.546 9 -0.231 0.026 0.925 0.105 5.07 14 0.218 1.00
5.0 85.0 45.8 25.0 1.489 8 -0.266 0.029 0.914 0.106 5.07 14 0.214 1.00
5.5 93.5 49.4 25.0 1.436 8 -0.303 0.034 0.903 0.107 5.07 13 0.210 1.00
6.0 102.0 53.0 20.0 1.332 16 -0.341 0.038 0.892 0.107 4.48 20 0.312 1.00
6.5 110.5 56.6 20.0 1.297 15 -0.380 0.042 0.880 0.107 4.48 20 0.302 1.00
7.0 119.0 60.2 20.0 1.264 15 -0.420 0.047 0.868 0.107 4.48 19 0.294 1.00
7.5 127.5 63.8 20.0 1.233 14 -0.462 0.051 0.856 0.107 4.48 19 0.287 1.00
8.0 136.0 67.4 20.0 1.204 14 -0.504 0.056 0.844 0.106 4.48 19 0.281 1.00
8.5 144.5 71.0 20.0 1.177 14 -0.547 0.061 0.832 0.106 4.48 18 0.275 1.00
9.0 153.0 74.6 20.0 1.152 13 -0.591 0.065 0.820 0.105 4.48 18 0.270 1.00
9.5 161.5 78.2 20.0 1.128 13 -0.636 0.070 0.807 0.104 4.48 18 0.266 1.00
10.0 170.0 81.8 20.0 1.103 13 -0.682 0.075 0.795 0.103 4.48 18 0.271 1.00
10.5 178.5 85.4 20.0 1.082 13 -0.728 0.080 0.783 0.102 4.48 18 0.267 1.00
11.0 187.0 89.0 20.0 1.062 13 -0.775 0.086 0.770 0.101 4.48 17 0.263 1.00
11.5 195.5 92.6 20.0 1.043 13 -0.822 0.091 0.758 0.100 4.48 17 0.259 1.00
12.0 204.0 96.2 20.0 1.025 12 -0.869 0.096 0.746 0.099 4.48 17 0.256 1.00
CONSULTING SERVICES IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Job title: DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Unit 1 Lakeview Point, Job no: U775
Claregalway Corporate Park, Co Galway Date: 01/07/2022
tel: +353 (0) 91 739366 Made by: BD
fax: +353 (0) 91 739944 Check by: CM
e-mail : [email protected] www.blpge.com Sheet no: -

Calculation Sheet
Project Title : DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Calculation Title : Estimation of liquefaction potential for profile 3
Ref Calculations Output
BS EN 1998 - 5: 2004

Definitions

aS = Max horizontal acceleration at ground surface (also referred to as Z)

CM = Surface wave magnitude factor
te = Seismic shear stress

Equations

CM = 0.67

Stress Correction : 0 kPa - Stress change to reflect filling/excavation from BH level

Finished Ground : 5 m RCD
Depth, z sv sv' FC (N1)60 CSR a b (N1)60 CS CRR CRR/CSR
(m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) % Reduction Factor, DE

0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0

0.5 8.5 8.5 70.0 4 0.062 5.000 1.200 10 0.074 1.179 1.00
1.0 17.0 17.0 70.0 4 0.062 5.000 1.200 10 0.074 1.179 1.00
1.5 25.5 20.6 70.0 4 0.077 5.000 1.200 10 0.074 0.953 0.67
2.0 34.0 24.2 70.0 4 0.088 5.000 1.200 10 0.074 0.839 0.67
2.5 42.5 27.8 70.0 4 0.095 5.000 1.200 10 0.074 0.771 0.33
3.0 51.0 31.4 60.0 2 0.101 5.000 1.200 7 0.060 0.590 0.00
3.5 59.5 35.0 60.0 2 0.106 5.000 1.200 7 0.060 0.564 0.00
4.0 68.0 38.6 25.0 9 0.110 4.289 1.115 15 0.105 0.952 0.67
4.5 76.5 42.2 25.0 9 0.113 4.289 1.115 14 0.102 0.899 0.67
5.0 85.0 45.8 25.0 8 0.116 4.289 1.115 14 0.099 0.855 0.67
5.5 93.5 49.4 25.0 8 0.118 4.289 1.115 13 0.097 0.820 0.67
6.0 102.0 53.0 20.0 16 0.120 3.615 1.079 21 0.151 1.256 1.00
6.5 110.5 56.6 20.0 15 0.122 3.615 1.079 20 0.146 1.199 1.00
7.0 119.0 60.2 20.0 15 0.123 3.615 1.079 20 0.142 1.150 1.00
7.5 127.5 63.8 20.0 14 0.125 3.615 1.079 19 0.138 1.108 1.00
8.0 136.0 67.4 20.0 14 0.126 3.615 1.079 19 0.135 1.071 1.00
8.5 144.5 71.0 20.0 14 0.127 3.615 1.079 18 0.132 1.038 1.00
9.0 153.0 74.6 20.0 13 0.128 3.615 1.079 18 0.129 1.008 1.00
9.5 161.5 78.2 20.0 13 0.129 3.615 1.079 18 0.127 0.982 0.67
10.0 170.0 81.8 20.0 13 0.130 3.615 1.079 18 0.130 1.000 0.67
10.5 178.5 85.4 20.0 13 0.130 3.615 1.079 18 0.127 0.976 1.00
11.0 187.0 89.0 20.0 13 0.131 3.615 1.079 18 0.125 0.954 1.00
11.5 195.5 92.6 20.0 13 0.132 3.615 1.079 17 0.123 0.935 1.00
12.0 204.0 96.2 20.0 12 0.132 3.615 1.079 17 0.121 0.916 1.00
CONSULTING SERVICES IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Job title: DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Unit 1 Lakeview Point, Job no: U775
Claregalway Corporate Park, Co Galway Date: 01/07/2022
tel: +353 (0) 91 739366 Made by: BD
fax: +353 (0) 91 739944 Check by: CM
e-mail : [email protected] www.blpge.com Sheet no: -

Calculation Sheet
Project Title : DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Calculation Title : Estimation of liquefaction potential for profile 3
Ref Calculations Output
Japanese Road Association (198)

Definitions

FL= Liquefaction Resistance Factor

R= Resistance of soil elements to dynamic load
L= dynamic loads to soil elements induced by earthquake motion

Equations

0.02mm ≤ D50 ≤ 0.05mm

0.05mm ≤ D50 ≤ 0.6mm

0.6mm ≤ D50 ≤ 2.0mm

Stress Correction : 0 kPa - Stress change to reflect filling/excavation from BH level

Finished Ground : 5 m RCD
Depth, z sv sv' FC D50 (N1)60 rd L R FL
(m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) % Reduction Factor, DE

0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0

0.5 8.5 8.5 70.0 0.33 5 0.993 0.095 0.245 1.500 1.00
1.0 17.0 17.0 70.0 0.33 5 0.985 0.095 0.231 1.500 1.00
1.5 25.5 20.6 70.0 0.33 5 0.978 0.116 0.220 1.500 1.00
2.0 34.0 24.2 70.0 0.33 5 0.970 0.131 0.215 1.500 1.00
2.5 42.5 27.8 70.0 0.33 5 0.963 0.141 0.211 1.496 1.00
3.0 51.0 31.4 60.0 0.33 2 0.955 0.149 0.126 0.846 0.67
3.5 59.5 35.0 60.0 0.33 2 0.948 0.155 0.124 0.801 0.67
4.0 68.0 38.6 25.0 0.33 9 0.940 0.159 0.267 1.500 1.00
4.5 76.5 42.2 25.0 0.33 9 0.933 0.162 0.257 1.500 1.00
5.0 85.0 45.8 25.0 0.33 8 0.925 0.165 0.248 1.500 1.00
5.5 93.5 49.4 25.0 0.33 8 0.918 0.167 0.239 1.435 1.00
6.0 102.0 53.0 20.0 0.33 16 0.910 0.168 0.326 1.500 1.00
6.5 110.5 56.6 20.0 0.33 15 0.903 0.169 0.316 1.500 1.00
7.0 119.0 60.2 20.0 0.33 15 0.895 0.170 0.307 1.500 1.00
7.5 127.5 63.8 20.0 0.33 14 0.888 0.170 0.299 1.500 1.00
8.0 136.0 67.4 20.0 0.33 14 0.880 0.170 0.291 1.500 1.00
8.5 144.5 71.0 20.0 0.33 14 0.873 0.170 0.283 1.500 1.00
9.0 153.0 74.6 20.0 0.33 13 0.865 0.170 0.276 1.500 1.00
9.5 161.5 78.2 20.0 0.33 13 0.858 0.170 0.270 1.500 1.00
10.0 170.0 81.8 20.0 0.33 13 0.850 0.170 0.270 1.500 1.00
10.5 178.5 85.4 20.0 0.33 13 0.843 0.169 0.264 1.500 1.00
11.0 187.0 89.0 20.0 0.33 13 0.835 0.168 0.259 1.500 1.00
11.5 195.5 92.6 20.0 0.33 13 0.828 0.168 0.253 1.500 1.00
12.0 204.0 96.2 20.0 0.33 12 0.820 0.167 0.248 1.486 1.00
CONSULTING SERVICES IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Job title: DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Unit 1 Lakeview Point, Job no: U775
Claregalway Corporate Park, Co Galway Date: 01/07/2022
tel: +353 (0) 91 739366 Made by: BD
fax: +353 (0) 91 739944 Check by: CM
e-mail : [email protected] www.blpge.com Sheet no: -

Calculation Sheet
Project Title : DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Calculation Title : Estimation of liquefaction potential for profile 3
Ref Calculations Output
Japanese Road Association (1996)

Definitions

FL= Liquefaction Resistance Factor

R= Resistance of soil elements to dynamic load
L= dynamic loads to soil elements induced by earthquake motion

Equations

Na < 14

Na ≥ 14

For Sands : For Gravels : Note : σv' units = kg/cm2

c1 = 1 for FC < 10% c2 = 0 for FC < 10%

(FC+40)/50 for 10% ≤ FC < 60% (FC-10)/18 for FC ≥ 10
(FC/20)-1 for FC ≥ 60

Stress Correction : 0 kPa - Stress change to reflect filling/excavation from BH level

Finished Ground : 5 m RCD
Soil Type Depth, z sv sv' FC D50 (N1)60 rd L Na R FL
Sand / Gravel (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) % Reduction Factor, DE

Sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0

Sand 0.5 8.5 8.5 70.0 0.33 5 0.993 0.095 26.476 3.618 1.500 1.00
Sand 1.0 17.0 17.0 70.0 0.33 5 0.985 0.095 24.178 3.381 1.500 1.00
Sand 1.5 25.5 20.6 70.0 0.33 5.14 0.978 0.116 23.337 3.305 1.500 1.00
Sand 2.0 34.0 24.2 70.0 0.33 5 0.970 0.131 22.561 3.238 1.500 1.00
Sand 2.5 42.5 27.8 70.0 0.33 5 0.963 0.141 21.843 3.178 1.500 1.00
Sand 3.0 51.0 31.4 60.0 0.33 2 0.955 0.149 7.853 1.896 1.500 1.00
Sand 3.5 59.5 35.0 60.0 0.33 2 0.948 0.155 7.677 1.874 1.500 1.00
Sand 4.0 68.0 38.6 25.0 0.33 9 0.940 0.159 16.414 2.741 1.500 1.00
Sand 4.5 76.5 42.2 25.0 0.33 9 0.933 0.162 15.251 2.642 1.500 1.00
Sand 5.0 85.0 45.8 25.0 0.33 8 0.925 0.165 14.237 2.552 1.500 1.00
Sand 5.5 93.5 49.4 25.0 0.33 8 0.918 0.167 13.346 2.471 1.500 1.00
Sand 6.0 102.0 53.0 20.0 0.33 16 0.910 0.168 22.324 3.218 1.500 1.00
Sand 6.5 110.5 56.6 20.0 0.33 15 0.903 0.169 21.015 3.111 1.500 1.00
Sand 7.0 119.0 60.2 20.0 0.33 15 0.895 0.170 19.839 3.018 1.500 1.00
Sand 7.5 127.5 63.8 20.0 0.33 14 0.888 0.170 18.778 2.933 1.500 1.00
Sand 8.0 136.0 67.4 20.0 0.33 14 0.880 0.170 17.815 2.856 1.500 1.00
Sand 8.5 144.5 71.0 20.0 0.33 14 0.873 0.170 16.938 2.784 1.500 1.00
Sand 9.0 153.0 74.6 20.0 0.33 13 0.865 0.170 16.136 2.717 1.500 1.00
Sand 9.5 161.5 78.2 20.0 0.33 13 0.858 0.170 15.400 2.655 1.500 1.00
Sand 10.0 170.0 81.8 20.0 0.33 13 0.850 0.170 15.468 2.661 1.500 1.00
Sand 10.5 178.5 85.4 20.0 0.33 13 0.843 0.169 14.809 2.603 1.500 1.00
Sand 11.0 187.0 89.0 20.0 0.33 13 0.835 0.168 14.199 2.549 1.500 1.00
Sand 11.5 195.5 92.6 20.0 0.33 13 0.828 0.168 13.632 2.498 1.500 1.00
Sand 12.0 204.0 96.2 20.0 0.33 12 0.820 0.167 13.105 2.449 1.500 1.00
Sand 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sand 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sand 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CONSULTING SERVICES IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Job title: DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Unit 1 Lakeview Point, Job no: U775
Claregalway Corporate Park, Co Galway Date: 01/07/2022
tel: +353 (0) 91 739366 Made by: BD
fax: +353 (0) 91 739944 Check by: CM
e-mail : [email protected] www.blpge.com Sheet no: -

Calculation Sheet
Project Title : DEVELOPMENT IN CITY PARK- RC CONTRACT 021-C06
Calculation Title : Estimation of liquefaction potential for profile 3
Ref Calculations Output

Output Charts :

SPT N-Value vs Elevation Liquefaction Potential vs Elevation Stiffness/Strength Reduction Factor vs Elevation

0.0 0.0

5.0

-1.0 -1.0

3.0

-2.0 -2.0

1.0

-3.0 -3.0

-1.0

-4.0 -4.0
Elevation (m OD)

Elevation (m OD)

Elevation (m OD)

-3.0

-5.0 -5.0

-5.0
-6.0 -6.0

-7.0 -7.0 -7.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0.5 1
SPT N-Value (blows/300mm) Liquefaction Potential Reduction Factor, De
SPT-N Measured N(1-60) Y&I I&B EN 1998 JRA 1980 JRA 1996 Y&I I&B EN 1998 JRA 1980 JRA 1996
 Appendix C – Structural Drawings

C
Report No. U0775-BL-GEO-R001